I can reply more in depth tomorrow because I'm getting ready for bed, but 1) Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, so it's not quite right to say her election "failed" in regards to ideology (strategy is another thing) 2) a secular Jewish Atheist candidate did exceedingly well, despite an anti-corporate message, and I'd argue he could have defeated Trump overall 3) I didn't say it "failed", I said it has exhausted itself, which leads me to 4) most notably, the majority of major legislature put forth by the Republicans is not going through, save for the tax cuts, which has always been beloved among conservatives. The public is not sold on immigration, the wall, etc. What are the conservative-leaning national projects the Republican party been putting forth? Seems like nothing much else.

EDIT: Actually I'm pretty sure this sums it up for me.

Other facts ought be considered by just plain common sense. — creativesoul

Are we talking about "spirit of the law" here?

You honestly don't see the threat to free speech and free thought from the left? — fishfry

One more try: what are you talking about? Make your case.

the founding fathers presupposed that the most rational, knowledgeable, wise and/or otherwise moral men would be the leaders.
— creativesoul

They supposed nothing of the sort. This is historically incorrect.

On the contrary, they assumed that future leaders would be venal, greedy, and no better or worse than people in general. That's why they designed a system with checks and balances so that no one individual and no one branch of government could run roughshod over the rights of the people. — fishfry

Ever read Plato's Republic? Are you denying that that book was influencial to this republic?

I agree about the foresight for the need of checks and balances.

Other facts ought be considered by just plain common sense.
— creativesoul

Are we talking about "spirit of the law" here? — Kamikaze Butter

Not particularly, but that phrase may qualify if it points towards such. I was thinking more about things such as looking at a timeline of known events.

Obama assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike. If not for being the President, that would be straight up murder in cold blood.

However, in accordance with his duties as a government official, the President is not culpable of murder in such a case. — Kamikaze Butter

Because rightly or wrongly, it was considered an act of war and not murder. And furthermore, he was acting in pursuance of Government policy, and not in pursuit of his own commercial or political interests.

On the contrary, they assumed that future leaders would be venal, greedy, and no better or worse than people in general. That's why they designed a system with checks and balances so that no one individual and no one branch of government could run roughshod over the rights of the people. — fishfry

Perfectly correct. And the GOP is now allowing Trump to ride roughshod over it [although in fairness there are at least some Republicans who are speaking out.]

I think today’s headlines are all about the fact that Trump dictated the letter about the infamous Trump Tower meeting between Jr and the Russians and then lied about it. Straight out lie - business as usual in Trumplandia. Except this time, he’s going up against someone whose profession is detecting lies and calling them out. It’s not the ‘fake news media’ or the ‘Trump supporters’ but an appointed executive with constitutional powers. Deadly peril, in other words. So Trump, as always, will try and bullshit his way out of it. The really scary thing is - he might succeed.

A pardon's not relevant until he's convicted of a crime. — fishfry

As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor.

...

Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.

I would hope, and even assume so, but what a travesty that would be if the Conservative arm of the Supreme Court let tribalism and party loyalty supersede what would be an American constitutional crisis, and all because the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, purely through partisanism. — Maw

Unless they plan to ensure that no Democrat is ever elected again, such a ruling would bite them in the ass eventually.

McConnell understands this logic which is why he won't remove the legislative filibuster.

Even kings have been subject to the rule of law in Anglo-American jurisprudence since what took place at Runnymede in 1215 — Ciceronianus the White

The Queen is immune from prosecution (and arrest).

Regarding the Magna Carta, only 4 of the original 63 clauses still stand:

1. The English church shall be free and shall have its rights undiminished
2. The City of London enjoys all its liberties and ancient customs
3. The right of habeas corpus
4. The right to trial by jury

Because rightly or wrongly, it was considered an act of war and not murder. And furthermore, he was acting in pursuance of Government policy, and not in pursuit of his own commercial or political interests. — Wayfarer

Right or wrong is the question.

Who determines governmental vs personal politics? Is a president reigning in what could be considered a done investigation not in the interest of the government being fair to those under its charge?

The Queen is immune from prosecution (and arrest). — Michael

Ah, yes, but not the monarchy itself! (ask the French)

You mean The Crown? I believe it's immune from criminal prosecution but not civil.

As far as I know, a presidential pardon, if one can be made in this instance, doesn't expire when a president leaves office. So I think we're talking about two different issues.

I do too. Trump's a troll. You let yourself get trolled. A pardon's not relevant until he's convicted of a crime. That hasn't happened. Why not save your outrage for things that are actually happening? That's my question. You can't stay outraged all the time. Can you? — fishfry

I see. You have a point. But the "cannot obstruct" argument is being made by his lawyers in what I think is a very real effort taking place now.

It seems you're quite right. Thank you.

The Queen is immune from prosecution (and arrest). — Michael

So she's 001?

She has a license to off with your head.

She has a license to off with your head. — Michael

I've seen her. I could beat her ass. It wouldn't be close as long as I could keep her from setting me up with her devastating flying elbow.

I see. You have a point. But the "cannot obstruct" argument is being made by his lawyers in what I think is a very real effort taking place now. — Ciceronianus the White

Maybe so. That's quite possible. But the public brouhaha was sparked by Rudy Giuliani making yet another inexplicable public utterance that makes Trump look guilty and cannot possibly be construed as some kind of deep strategy. So naturally it got the talking heads on cable tv going. Then Trump echoed Rudy's talking point and the hysteria was on.

My point in posting was simply that there's no need for people to get triggered by every single public utterance that Trump makes. Why make a top post about the latest Trump pronouncement, Trump tweet, Trump scandal. Trump anything? Isn't there a point where people say, "Hey Trump's gonna be Trump, I'm going to save my outrage for things that really matter. Wake me when something actually happens, not just when Rudy Giuliani shoots off his mouth."

Clearly that point's wasted on those stricken with Trump derangement syndrome. I see all his flaws and for the record I'm a registered Democrat and longtime social liberal. I oppose many of Trump's policies.

I just don't get triggered by him like so many do. Like the taco bowl tweet. Liberals were outraged. I said to myself, "That's funny! This guy is a performance artist!" So I can agree politically with liberals about many of the social issues, but I can still stand back in bemusement at their reflexive hysteria every time Trump trolls them ... which is exactly what he's doing.

Then somehow, the thread turned to free speech, with someone suggesting that there are categories of people who shouldn't have it. That I regard as a very dangerous and disturbing thread of thinking on the contemporary left. Like I say, I support the 1977 position of the ACLU in the Skokie case. Free speech must include the most vile and despicable speech. If not, who will draw the line? As the brilliant civil libertarian Nat Hentoff titled his book: Free Speech for Me and not for Thee." https://www.amazon.com/Free-Speech-Me-But-Not-Thee/dp/006019006X

I see this morning that I have a number of replies to my posts. I regret that I won't be able to respond to each of them individually. Let me just say for the record that I have only two points:

* No law requires you to allow Trump to troll you repeatedly, day after day. Save a little outrage for the Democrats and corporatists who made his presidency possible and, in retrospect, inevitable. Like the Democratic Senators who recently confirmed torturer Gina Haspell as CIA director. Some "#resistance."

* I stand for free speech and the first amendment. Free speech for Nazis, free speech for racists, free speech for those morons at the Westboro Baptist church, free speech for you, and free speech for me. You can't limit the free expression of ideas and think you're going to keep a free society.

You can't limit the free expression of ideas and think you're going to keep a free society. — fishfry

Then somehow, the thread turned to free speech, with someone suggesting that there are categories of people who shouldn't have it. — fishfry

I very clearly didn't say or suggest that Government limit free speech, and I explicitly stated so in my previous post when you failed to comprehend it the first time. You say that freedom of speech (i.e., the First Amendment) is under attack by the Left. When the Government is controlled by the Republicans, how is that possible? I notice you don't bother touching upon Trump's views on the NFL kneeling, or his calls to get Samantha Bee fired. Explain. Because otherwise you're just pontificating banal pecksniffery.

I notice you don't bother touching upon Trump's views on the NFL kneeling, — Maw

Funny you should mention that. I'm a big fan of the NFL and I think Trump's really a jerk to pick a fight with the Eagles. It turns out (heard this on the radio today) that no Eagles players knelt during the national anthem all year last season.

If I misunderstood your remarks on free speech, my apologies. But you did seem to be in favor of no-platforming certain classes of speakers; and at state-sponsored schools, that's a violation of the first amendment. At private schools it's a different set of issues.

This thread's not about Samantha Bee but By Gosh she called somebody FECKLESS! Now that's insulting. And regarding Rosanne, I'm annoyed that she made a racial remark aimed at Valerie Jarrett since it makes it that much more difficult to level serious, substantive, well-deserved criticisms of Jarrett.

You really seem to be wildly extrapolating things I didn't say. And I'm still mystified at why someone played the Mitch McConnell card on me. What the hell does he have to do with anything? It seems that if one calls out Trump derangement syndrome, one is assumed to support everything Trump says. If that's not bad logic I don't know what is. That's exactly what Trump derangement syndrome is. I say, "Don't let Trump trigger you all the time," and people somehow think this has something to do with the NFL and Samantha Bee.

You really seem to be wildly extrapolating things I didn't say. — fishfry

What did I accuse you of through "wild extrapolation"? What I said was, despite charging the left with attacking the First Amendment (you've yet to produce examples, despite multiple members asking you) you never mentioned instances where Trump or his administration did exactly that. I merely asked you to explain that inconsistency. So what "wild extrapolation"? It is curious to note that you say the Left threatens free speech, Trump is merely a "jerk" when he does it.

And I'm still mystified at why someone played the Mitch McConnell card on me. What the hell does he have to do with anything? It seems that if one calls out Trump derangement syndrome, one is assumed to support everything Trump says. If that's not bad logic I don't know what is. That's exactly what Trump derangement syndrome is. I say, "Don't let Trump trigger you all the time," and people somehow think this has something to do with the NFL and Samantha Bee. — fishfry

I believe tim wood brought up McConnell in relation to your claims about freedom of speech being at threat by the left. I read it has him implying that McConnell has been attacking free speech, and so the right are guilty of it too (although I don't know what he's referring to).

So I suppose I could turn your own words against you. Why suppose that if someone calls out a Republican for being guilty of what you're accusing "the Left" of do you suppose that you're being assumed an evangelical Trump supporter? Are you seeing Trump derangement syndrome where there is none? That's got to be a derangement of its own.

In Canada, "the Crown" is ostensibly the federal government given how very little the monarchy and governor/lieutenant generals can actually do (they're glorified "yes" men at this point). AFAIK the crown retains a select few emergency powers that act as protections against tyrannical ministers, gridlocked parliaments, and undemocratic or unethical legislation. The queen's generals have the right to veto Canadian legislation, but actually doing so is risky business. If the Queen's representatives really started to exercise influence that was in any way not in the interest of the Canadian people, they would be painting a massive reform target over any formal vestiges of monarchic authority that remains.

And this what what I was really getting at: should the Crown fail the Canadian people in any significant way, in sanguine but bloodless fashion we would legislate the monarchy out of our hearts and constitution. With great pith and sorry, we would graduate to a new level of cultural and constitutional identity. I think it would take an extremely brazen governor general acting on behalf of the monarch themselves to piss us off enough for this to come to pass, and the generals themselves are already on notice.

From Wiki:

In 2013, the Supreme Court refused to hear the request of former Lieutenant Governor of Quebec Lise Thibault to have charges against her dropped. She was being prosecuted for misappropriation of public funds but invoked royal immunity on the basis that "the Queen can do no wrong". As per convention, the court did not disclose its motives for doing so. She later petitioned a court in Quebec for the same motives. Judge Carol St-Cyr again rejected her demand, noting that constitutional law does not grant a lieutenant-governor the same benefits as the Queen and that royal immunity would only apply to actions involving official state functions, not personal ones.[14] She was sentenced to 18 months in jail but was granted conditional release after six months. — wiki

We might not hold individual royals accountable for their criminal actions, but we could and would hold the monarchy itself accountable, and do away with it like a bad relationship in extreme circumstances. It would chart well with Canada's somewhat slow progress towards self-governance, though I'm sure it would be a nightmare for actual legislators to pull off.

In my view the British monarchy has to walk on eggshells to avoid scandal of any kind which could threaten to end their formal status even within the UK. Conversely, Trump seems completely immune from scandal but vulnerable to criminal prosecution (and showing signs of weakness of late with his renewed talk of self-pardons)...

I believe tim wood brought up McConnell in relation to your claims about freedom of speech being at threat by the left. — Michael

Oh ok. I'm a lifelong liberal so I am actually more upset with the liberals these days, which is why my rhetoric skews anti-liberal lately The conservatives are doing what they always do, there's almost no point in calling them out. I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that the Constitution and the freedom of the American people are under serious assault by both parties these days. In fact that's why partisanship drives me crazy. It's not "the other guys" doing all these bad things. You know Bush could not have gone to war in Iraq without Hillary and the Dems. Pelosi and Feinstein and other so-called "liberals" signed off on the torture. The massive overspending is bipartisan, although to be fair both Bill Clinton and even Obama did try to get the deficit under control. To me, it's the people versus the government at this point. If you only point at one side you are not seeing things clearly IMO. It's the government that's badly out of control.

Which, by the way, explains Trump. If you believe that business as usual is leading to disaster, you're willing to roll the dice with a lewd, crude, attention-deficit blowhard like Trump. He could not have become president with only the deplorables, who make up 30% of the voting public. Many independent-minded people voted for him in the hopes that blowing up the system might be preferable to perpetuating it with the likes of the corrupt warmonger Hillary.

Whether or not the president can be found guilty of obstruction of justice matters.

The United States is not supposed to be a monarchy or any other authoritarian type of construct. That's supposed to be a major difference. If the president cannot be found guilty of obstruction, and has legitimate power to stop any investigation into him/herself, then s/he could do whatever s/he wanted and there would be no legal recourse even possible. There is no way that that is what was intended by the founding fathers.

Jeez. Common sense.

It may be the case, as all the historical memos seem to show, that whether or not the president can be indicted and/or otherwise prosecuted has not yet been decided upon. One can find different opinions during different times in different memos. Evidently, the situations at the time didn't warrant such drastic measures. However, the Constitution does set out the case for doing it under extraordinary circumstances. If obstruction doesn't fit the bill, surely conspiracy to commit fraud against the people(the United States) does.

Partisan thinkers are a major problem in and of themselves, because bipartisan politics are utterly inadequate when both parties have produced presidents that are guilty of the same behaviours which amount to a major root of all major problems in the country.

The left this... the right that...

Fuck people wake up. That's all a bullshit sideshow that keeps most in the dark, whether intentionally or not. These aren't partisan issues we're dealing with currently.

I aspire to one day use "pecksniffery" and not feel like an asshole for doing so, lol.

Well obviously “conspiracy to commit fraud against the people” does not fit the bill because every president has lied about many many things.

So the precedent against your claim has been long set.

The precedent being repeatedly set and not immediately stopped IS the problem.